Top lawyers exit Paul, Weiss law firm after Trump deal
Attorneys Karen Dunn, left, and Jeannie Rhee, two of the four top partners who have announced that they are leaving the Paul Weiss law firm (Image Credit: NYT News Service)
A leading Democratic attorney and three senior partners are departing from Paul, Weiss to establish their legal practice, according to the Politico.
These exits follow two months after Paul, Weiss arranged an agreement with the White House, pledging $40 million in pro-bono legal services for Trump-supported causes, in exchange for withdrawing an executive order that the firm's Chair Brad Karp indicated could have been devastating for their organisation.
The departing group includes Karen Dunn, former co-chair of the firm's litigation division, who has assisted Democratic presidential and vice presidential candidates with debate preparation since 2008.
Jeannie Rhee, who served in the Justice Department during Obama's administration and previously defended Hillary Clinton in her private email server case before joining Robert Mueller's investigation team, is also leaving.
The group also includes Jessica Phillips, known for representing major technology firms in court, and William Isaacson, a distinguished trial lawyer previously recognised as litigator of the year by The American Lawyer.
"We were disappointed not to be able to tell each of you personally and individually the news that we have decided to leave Paul, Weiss to start a new law firm," Dunn wrote in a goodbye email sent to the firm's partners.
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
One of the Most Successful Investors of All Time, Warren Buffett, Recommends: 5 Books for Turning...
Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List
Click Here
Undo
"It has been an honor to work alongside such talented lawyers and to call so many of you our friends. We hope to continue to collaborate with all of you in the years to come and are incredibly grateful for your warm and generous partnership.
"
The executive order, which referenced the firm's connection to a lawyer who had investigated Trump for the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, restricted the firm's access to government contracts, limited their lawyers' interactions with officials, and threatened to bar Paul Weiss attorneys from government buildings.
Federal judges have declared similar directives against Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block unconstitutional. WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey have filed lawsuits challenging comparable executive orders, with decisions still pending.
However, Paul Weiss and other prestigious law firms negotiated agreements to improve relations with Trump.
"Paul Weiss is grateful to Bill, Jeannie, Jessica and Karen for their many contributions. We wish them well in all their future endeavors," the firm said in a statement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
19 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump administration signals it will slash funds for long-delayed California high-speed rail project
LOS ANGELES — The Trump administration signaled Wednesday that it intends to cut off federal funding for a long-delayed California high-speed rail project plagued by multibillion-dollar cost overruns, following the release of a scathing federal report that concluded there is 'no viable path' to complete even a partial section of the line. Voters first authorized $10 billion in borrowed funds in 2008 to cover about a third of the estimated cost, with a promise the train would be up and running by 2020. Five years beyond that deadline, no tracks have been laid and its estimated price tag has ballooned to over $100 billion. In a letter to the California High-Speed Rail Authority, which oversees the project, Federal Railroad Administration acting Administrator Drew Feeley wrote that what was envisioned as an 800-mile system connecting the state's major cities has been reduced to a blueprint for 'a 119-mile track to nowhere.' After a $4 billion federal investment, the California agency 'has conned the taxpayer ... with no viable plan to deliver even that partial segment on time,' Feeley wrote. State officials defended what's known as the nation's largest infrastructure project and said they remain committed to construction, though it's not clear what funding would replace the federal support if it's withdrawn. Feeley noted the FRA could seek repayment of the federal funds but is not proposing to claw back those dollars at this time. Carol Dahmen, the state authority's chief of strategic communications, said in a statement that the federal conclusions are misguided and 'do not reflect the substantial progress made to deliver high-speed rail in California.' Dahmen noted that the majority of the funding for the line has been provided by the state and that Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's budget proposal would extend at least $1 billion a year for 20 years to complete an initial segment of the line. State officials are focused on a stretch connecting the Central Valley cities of Bakersfield and Merced, which is set to be operating by 2033. The state agency has about a month to formally respond to the FRA, after which the grants could be terminated. State Sen. Tony Strickland, a Republican from Huntington Beach who is vice chair of the Transportation Committee, said that 'commonsense has prevailed" and urged the Legislature's dominant Democrats to redirect the funds from the rail line to lowering gas prices or investing in viable construction projects. 'Let's stop wasting California's hard-earned taxpayer dollars,' Strickland said. There is no known source for the billions of dollars that would be needed to complete the line. California High-Speed Rail Authority CEO Ian Choudri suggested in April that private investors could step in and fill the funding gap for the project that promised nonstop rail service between San Francisco and Los Angeles in under three hours. At the time, he acknowledged that even if funding is secured, it might take nearly two more decades to complete most of that segment. President Donald Trump said in May that his administration will not continue to fund the line. 'That train is the worst cost overrun I've ever seen,' Trump told reporters at the time, calling it "totally out of control.' This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hindustan Times
32 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Canadian bill seeks to deny hearings to some asylum-seekers
TORONTO, - A Canadian border-security bill introduced by the Liberal government earlier this week may deny some asylum-seekers a refugee hearing and make it easier for the government to revoke migrants' status. The bill comes as the government seeks to address U.S. concerns about its border security and reduce the number of migrants in the country. In addition to denying some refugee hearings and allowing the suspension, cancellation or variance of immigration documents, the bill facilitates sharing people's information and makes it easier to read people's mail, among other measures. President Donald Trump has said Canada had failed to do enough to stem the flow of illicit fentanyl into the U.S., using that as justification for some of his tariffs. This week Trump doubled the tariffs in place on steel and aluminum, prompting calls for Canada to boost retaliatory measures of its own. Late last year Canada pledged C$1.3 billion to beef up its border. As Canada reduces the number of new permanent and temporary residents, its refugee system faces a historic backlog of more than 280,000 cases. This week's bill follows through on some of those border promises as well as on suggestions from some top ministers that Canada would fast-track refusals for some refugee claims. If the bill passes, asylum-seekers who have been in Canada more than one year would not be eligible for refugee hearings. Instead, they would have access to a pre-removal risk assessment, meant to determine whether they would be in danger in their country of origin. According to data published by Canada's Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Department, 30% of pre-removal risk assessments in 2019 for people deemed ineligible for refugee hearings were approved; by contrast, according to Immigration and Refugee Board data, that year 60% of finalized refugee hearings were approved. Asylum-seekers who wait two weeks to file claims after crossing from the U.S. to avoid being turned back under a bilateral agreement would also not get hearings. The bill, which needs to go through multiple readings before the House of Commons votes on it and sends it to the Senate, would also allow the government to "cancel, suspend or vary" immigration documents if deemed in the public interest. Migrant and refugee advocates worry the changes could leave vulnerable people deported to dangerous situations in their home countries without adequate due process. A spokesperson for Canada's Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab said on Wednesday that the government recognizes the conditions in people's home countries may change, but the pre-removal risk assessment will prevent them from being returned to persecution or torture. "The asylum ineligibilities introduced yesterday seek to maintain protection for those fleeing danger while discouraging misuse that bypasses the asylum system's function – which is to protect the vulnerable," the spokesperson wrote in an email. "Canada is reneging on its basic human rights obligations to do individual arbitration," said Migrant Rights Network spokesperson Syed Hussan. "This is teeing up a deportation machine."
Hindustan Times
37 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump names nominees to take over commands in the Middle East and Africa
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is nominating Vice Adm. Brad Cooper to take over as the top U.S. military commander in the Middle East, the Pentagon said Wednesday. If he is confirmed, it would mark just the second time that a Navy admiral has held the job. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in a statement that Trump also is nominating Air Force Lt. Gen. Dagvin Anderson to head U.S. Africa Command. Anderson would be the first Air Force general to lead the command, which was created in 2007. Cooper is currently deputy commander of U.S. Central Command and has extensive experience serving and leading troops in the Middle East. The current head of the command, Army Gen. Erik Kurilla, is slated to retire after more than three years in the post. It is a crucial role as the region has been shaken by conflict, with the Trump administration pushing to broker a ceasefire deal after 20 months of war in Gaza and pressing for an agreement with Iran in negotiations over Tehran's rapidly advancing nuclear program. A 1989 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, Cooper commanded naval forces in the Middle East for close to three years as the head of the Navy's 5th Fleet in Bahrain. He left in February 2024 to take over as deputy at Central Command, which oversees U.S. military operations in the Middle East and is based in Tampa. Army and Marine generals have largely held the Middle East job since it was created in 1983. And two of the recent leaders — former Army Gen. Lloyd Austin and former Marine Gen. Jim Mattis, went on to serve as defense secretary. Central Command covers 21 countries across central and south Asia and northeast Africa and has overseen the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Syria and Yemen. The only Navy officer to ever lead Central Command was Adm. William Fallon, who resigned after a year and retired. At the time, Fallon said he was stepping down due to press reports that suggested he was opposed to then-President George W. Bush's Iran policies. He said the reports were wrong but the perception had become a distraction. Cooper is a surface warfare officer and served on guided-missile cruisers, destroyers, aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships. He commanded a destroyer and a cruiser. During his time leading the 5th Fleet, Cooper set up the Navy's first unmanned and artificial intelligence task force, and he led naval operations against the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. He also oversaw the Navy's role in Operation Prosperity Guardian, the U.S.-led coalition created in late 2023 to counter Houthi attacks on commercial ships in the Red Sea. He previously served as commander of Naval Surface Force Atlantic and commander of U.S. Naval Forces Korea. Cooper is the son of a career Army officer and got his master's degree in strategic intelligence from the National Intelligence University. Anderson, nominated to lead operations in Africa, is a pilot who has flown the KC-135 tanker, the C-130 transport aircraft and the U-28A surveillance aircraft used largely by special operations forces. He has flown more than 3,400 flight hours, including 738 in combat. He is currently serving as the director of joint force development on the Joint Staff. According to the Air Force, he commanded a special operations squadron, an expeditionary squadron, an operations group and a special operations wing. He also led the task force that coordinated the repositioning of U.S. forces from Somalia and headed Special Operations Command, Africa, from 2019 to 2021. Africa Command is the newest of the Pentagon's geographic commands and covers the bulk of the African continent. Much of the U.S. military's efforts there have focused on combatting extremist groups and training local forces. Anderson would be the seventh general to head Africa Command. To date, four of the previous leaders were Army generals and two were Marines. Anderson is from Ypsilanti, Michigan, and graduated from the ROTC program at Washington University in St. Louis.
